General > General Discussion

Possible VT solutions

<< < (2/26) > >>

BeckyAH:
Is there any reason you can't combine the solutions?  They all seem like good ones to me.  No VT points to qualify for champs, if there are reports of cheating you must sign off,  and enforce the milage more accurately (as you can).  I don't know about the courses posted, but I also don't have a problem with it.  If the work load is too much with all of that just a combination of no points applying for champs qualifications and requiring sign offs based on reports of cheating (or maybe multiple reports, I don't know) would probably eliminate most of the problems and send a pretty danged clear message that NADAC does not approve or condone the cheating.

Lorrie Stelz:
I like Karissa's suggestions. Definitely the one where if there is a trial within a certain distance within that month, you can't do VT. I talked to a trial host last year who said VT runs were really affecting their entries.
How about making VT Qs only worth 5 points and increase the cost a bit. So it would be more expensive and take twice as many Qs to achieve the same title, therefore making trials more appealing. I saw one competitor who earned their natch mostly on VT runs and stopped doing trials. Besides this dog not being successful in a trial atmosphere which I believe all dogs need to to earn top awards, they didn't support the trials. I'd save a TON of money and have only 1/4 of my current awful debt if I only did VT, but there's something special about trialing and should be encouraged. I hate seeing entries falling and since VT, I've seen people in my region be less concerned about attending trials than they were before. 😔  Where they used to attend about 80 percent of trials, now they are attending only about 1/4-1/2 than they were before.

Chris Nelson:
The idea of making the VT Q's worth less, or more expensive is definitely an option.

I agree whole heartedly that trials is where people should be.

Also the list I posted above was definitely going to be used ALL TOGETHER!    Using only a couple of those options would help, but at this point we would be enforcing all of the options I listed above.   With the possibility of a couple more not listed.

BeckyAH:

--- Quote from: Chris Nelson on December 01, 2017, 02:37:44 PM ---The idea of making the VT Q's worth less, or more expensive is definitely an option.

I agree whole heartedly that trials is where people should be.

Also the list I posted above was definitely going to be used ALL TOGETHER!    Using only a couple of those options would help, but at this point we would be enforcing all of the options I listed above.   With the possibility of a couple more not listed.

--- End quote ---

Then it sounds like you've got a solution to me! 

I will say I rarely even submit VT runs - I think I've submitted one; I just don't have the space or equipment, though I think I might do some hoopers when the program's back online (or hope to!).

But I tend to agree that separating VT program titling would be... less than ideal.   I don't think it would really address the cheating in any way.  It may well lead to people feeling excluded - and would actually exclude them because their titles now have nothing to do with people doing trials.
 
And most importantly it could potentially  really remove motivation from people who do a lot of VT runs to EVER enter a trial.  Why bother with those few trials they can do/do do now? Those Qs are now the ones not going toward the titles they're getting/going to get.    (Of course the flip side of this is people who do a lot of trials also have no motivation to do VT runs at all, ever, either, but that's not quite the same downside given the 'we want people in trials' thing.)

Lorrie Stelz:
I should mention that VT has had a LOT of positive response in my region and has created some additional interest. And, I know the people by me are very honest. I just hope we keep the trial as the primary goal which it sounds like you are wanting to do.

Keep up the great work, Chris!!  I am forever appreciative!!!!!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version